Re: Errata for Touch Events?

On 05/12/2014 12:27, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> FYI, some information about the history for this addition is summarized
> in LC comment [LC-7].

Skimming over the stuff linked from LC-7, this seems to be the crux 
(from Michael Cooper)

"There is a general need for a "primer" document in the W3C space 
explaining the various DOM events and how they relate to each other, 
also providing best practices of device-specific and device-independent 
authoring."

I agree with this sentiment as well. However...it's now 3 years down the 
line, and the TE spec very prominently links to a blank holding page, 
prefacing with "The W3C's Protocols and Formats Working Group created a 
non-normative document"...no, they didn't create it. They said they 
would, but didn't follow through.

> Although, as you say, the referenced doc [Mapping] is essentially empty,
> I don't see it as necessarily harmful. As such, before the quoted text
> above is removed, I recommend we work with the PFWG on a mutually
> agreeable solution.

"We" as in the CG? Sure, why not. Happy to help, though it would be good 
to get a feel for some timescales here (again...3 years...blank page...)

 >  I'm willing to work on that, if/when there is
> consensus within this CG to remove the [Mapping] reference (and ATM, I
> object to its removal).

Maybe de-emphasising the note, or just changing the wording (so it 
doesn't say that the document was created when in fact it wasn't) may be 
another interim option?

P
(sorry, probably coming across more disgruntled than I should be about 
this ;) )
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 13:25:18 UTC